Objective: To investigate the compatibility of oxytocin and tranexamic acid injection products when mixed for the purpose of co-administration by intravenous infusion. Population or Sample: Oxytocin and tranexamic acid were collected from hospitals taking part in a multicentre postpartum haemorrhage treatment (E-MOTIVE) trial in Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, and South Africa. Methods: The compatibility of two sentinel products of oxytocin injection and tranexamic acid injection in 200mL infusion bags of both 0.9%w/v saline and Ringer’s Lactate was assessed. We analysed all tranexamic acid -oxytocin combinations, and each evaluation was conducted for up to 6hrs. Subsequently, the compatibility of multiple tranexamic acid products with reference oxytocins products when mixed in 0.9%w/v saline over a period of 1 hour was investigated. Results: We found a significant interaction between certain oxytocin and tranexamic acid products after mixing them in vitro and observing for 1 hour. The interaction substantially impacted oxytocin content leading to reduction in concentration (14.8% - 29.0%) immediately on mixing (t=0 minutes). In some combinations, the concentration continued to decline throughout the stability assessment period. Oxytocin loss was observed in 7 out of 22 (32%) combinations tested. Conclusions: In a clinical setting, mixing oxytocin and tranexamic acid may result in an underdosing of oxytocin, compromising care in an emergency life-threatening situation. The mixing of oxytocin and tranexamic acid injection products for co-administration with IV infusion fluids should be avoided until the exact nature of the interaction and its implications are understood.

Objectives: to evaluate the effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for atonic refractory postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) after vaginal birth, and the effect of including uterine tamponade devices in institutional protocols. Search strategy: databases in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and POPLINE. Study selection: randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Outcomes: composite outcome including surgical interventions (artery ligations, uterine compressive sutures or hysterectomy) or maternal death, and hysterectomy. Results: all four included studies were at high risk of bias. The certainty of evidence rated as very low to low. One randomised study measured the effect of the the condom-catheter balloon compared to standard care and found unclear results for the composite outcome (RR 2.33, 95%CI 0.76-7.14) and hysterectomy (RR 4.14, 95%CI 0.48-35.93). Three comparative studies assessed the effect of including UBTs in institutional protocols. A stepped-wedge study suggested an increase in the composite outcome (RR 4.08, 95%CI 1.07-15.58), and unclear results for hysterectomy (RR 4.38, 95% CI 0.47-41.09) with the use of the condom-catheter or surgical glove balloon. One non-randomised study showed unclear effects on the composite outcome (RR 0.33, 95%CI 0.11-1.03) and hysterectomy (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.04-5.38) after the inclusion of Bakri balloon. The second non-randomized study found unclear effects on the composite outcome (RR 0.95, 95%CI 0.32-2.81) and hysterectomy (RR 1.84, 95%CI 0.44-7.69) after the inclusion of Ebb or Bakri balloon. Conclusions: the effect of uterine tamponade devices for the management of atonic refractory PPH after vaginal delivery is unclear, as is the role of the type of device and the setting.

Objectives: to describe available uterine tamponade devices for the management of postpartum haemorrhage, and to evaluate its effectiveness as a treatment of refractory PPH. Search strategy: Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and POPLINE. Study selection: To describe uterine tamponade devices any type of study was included; only randomised and non-randomised comparative studies were included to assess the effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices. Outcomes: The primary outcomes were: a composite outcome including surgical interventions or maternal death, and hysterectomy. Results: Twenty-four types of tamponade devices were identified. The Bakri and the condom-catheter balloon were the most frequently reported. One randomised controlled trial suggests non-significant increases in the composite outcome (RR 2.33, 95%CI 0.76-7.14) and hysterectomy (RR 4.14, 95%CI 0.48-35.93) associated with the condom-catheter balloon vs. no device. Another RCT suggests a non-significant reduction in the composite outcomes (RR 0.60; 95%CI 0.16-2.31) and hysterectomy (RR=0.5; 95%CI 0.05-5.25) with the Bakri balloon vs the condom-catheter balloon. A stepped-wedge study suggests an increase in the composite outcome (RR 4.08, 95%CI 1.07-15.58), and a non-significant increase in hysterectomies (RR 4.38, 95% CI 0.47-41.09) associated with the introduction of condom-catheter or surgical glove balloon into clinical settings. Conversely, non-randomised studies showed a non-statistically significant reduction (RR=0.61, 95%CI 0.27-1.40) in the composite outcome and no effect on hysterectomy associated with the use of the Bakri balloon. Conclusions: The effect of UBT for the management of atonic refractory PPH after vaginal delivery is unclear, as is the role of the type of device and the setting.